The following is a Letter from and to CA State Parks by Dr. Keven Schmidt, Advocacy Director for The Electric Mountain Bike Association. The photo is a citation issued to a supporter riding in Chino State Parks as an example. However in Chino State Park they are allowing e-bikes if you fill out a form claiming to have a mobility disability. Also in OC Parks you just have to state that the e-bike is your mobility devise and you have a mobility disability assuming you do. The Ranger will waive you on. Having a mobility disability sticker can help by setting the tone of the conversation. In some cases they will just waive you on after seeing the sticker. A mobility disability can be anything that signifyingly limits your mobility. It can be obvious or not such as arthritis, injury or heart disease or even just not being able to walk long distances to enjoy the park trails. It is really a personal assessment between you and or your doctor. No public employee is allowed to ask you about your disability or for proof per the DOJ 2011 rule. Mobility disability stickers are available by joining and making a donation to the Electric Mountain Bike Association. https://www.electricmountainbikeassociation.org Please support the Electric Mountain Bike Association. Here is the latest letter- -------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: c1pa (ebike class 1) ban in the parks
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 19:35:38 -0800
From: Kevin Schmidt
To: Trails@Parks <Trails@parks.ca.gov>
Thank you for your time in addressing my questions. However, there were a lot of questions that weren't answered. I will answer and ask questions in an interrogatory style so that my specific questions can be answered in totality.
On 10/26/2022 10:12 AM, Trails@Parks wrote:
Good morning Mr. Schmidt,
The Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”), does not prevent the Department of Parks and Recreation (“Department”) from restricting the use of electric bicycles at certain park locations. The CPSA enables the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) to develop uniform standards and bans for consumer products. Section 2805 of the CPSA says that electric bicycles are subject to the Commission’s standards for all bicycles. These standards only relate to the manufacture and sale of electric bicycles. Section 1512.3 of the California Code of Regulations states that the Commission’s standards for bicycles are related to the condition in which bicycles are manufactured and sold. Section 2805 also states that the Commission’s standards shall not be superseded by any stricter State law or other requirement for electric bicycles. This means that any State law or requirement concerning the manufacture and sale of electric bicycles cannot stand if it is stricter than the Commission’s own standards. These rules do not address how electric bicycles may be used after they are sold to consumers. Therefore, the CPSA does not prevent the Department from restricting the use of electric bicycles at certain park locations.
There are several questions I have about your reply:
In referring to c1pa, I am only using that term to apply to class 1 pedal assist bikes. As you well know, there are other classes of e-bikes (and electric motorcycles), of which I am not advocating the lifting of any ban. I do agree with the law on the ban of class 2, class 3 and electric motorcycles (power over 750W, no throttle assist and speed over 20mph). In my questions, stating c1pa, is only applying to class 1 pedal assist (c1pa). in referring to lifting the ban, I am only referring to c1pa mountain bikes.
You mentioned that the CPSA only applies to the manufacture of c1pa (or all e-bikes). I could not find that section anywhere. Would you be so kind as to send me the URL or link to that section so I can read it for myself?
The BLM in their final ruling (Dec. 2020) lifted their ban on c1pa use so that they would COMPLY with the CPSA. This seems in contradiction to your explanation about it only referring to the manufacturing of e-bikes. Is this perhaps a matter of interpretation? As I previously stated, I have, despite multiple hours looking, not been able to find the actual law you mentioned above (Secton 2805 of the CPSA). I would like to read it myself.
As previously stated the Department is allowed to regulate e-bikes Under AB 1096 and AB1909. This authority allows District Superintendents the authority to regulate e-bike use within the bounds of departmental e-bike policy as necessary to protect park resources and public safety per the individual circumstances associated with a park unit.
First, you mentioned that the District Superintendents have the authority to regulate c1pa use. However, I have spoken to the supervisor of the one of the affected districts and she stated she does NOT have the authority to make any changes. She referred me to you, instead, to answer my questions. Hence the reason for this email, as she could not, admittedly, answer my specific questions.
Yes, the laws you stated do give the state the authority to regulate c1pa's within the bounds of the dept. I would hope that the government (and especially public lands/parks) makes its decisions and rules based on facts, public input and studies, not someone's perception.
However, in reference to the ordinances that the parks use to regulate, are arbitrary. For instance, Crystal Cove claims a ban on c1pa due to "speed and safety." However studies have shown and the conclusion by the BLM Final Rule state, that there is no difference between c1pa and regular mountain bikes (mtb). I asked from you, are there any studies you can refer me that justifies the ban? However, you did not address that ordinance or its valid reason as stated for the ban (see your response above). In fact, studies have shown that c1pa's are SLOWER on downhills than mtb's. C1pa's have a max speed that prevents them from any assist over 20mph. On a mtb, there is no limiter. So how does Crystal Cove come to the conclusion that c1pa's are faster, and therefore more hazardous to affect "speed and safety"? It is only because of a perception that since they have a motor, they are faster. Let's consider the ban on the basis of facts and studies, not perceptions. c1pa's are NOT motorcycles!
Since Los Angeles district has opened up its trails to ebikes, they are having problems now with class 2,3 and electric motorcycles invading the parks. So ticket those offenders, not ebikes as a blanket ban. Understand the classes and then punish the violators, not all of us.
Another study has shown that in regards to trail erosion, motorcycles/ATV's are the worst. This is followed by equestrians, then hikers, then mountain bikes. Notice hikers are worse than mountain bikes. So, if the concern is trail erosion why are equestrians not banned? Again, it is because of perception that bikes are causing trail degradation, which is not validated by contemporary studies. And c1pa's have an equivalent amount of trail erosion that is no different than that of mountain bikes. Motorcycles spin tires, cause erosion and have higher speeds. C1pa's don't. Yet one is allowed, the other is banned.
In regards to Chino Hills, it states the ban is due to "wildlife impact." However, studies show that there is no difference in wildlife impact from hikers, mtber's and equestrians. If you want to get more specific, studies have shown that equestrians have the most impact, yet they are allowed to use the trails and c1pa's are not. Again. I ask you, are there any studies you can quote, or send me a link to, that justify the c1pa ban and NOT the equestrians that are allowed? When was the last time the ordinance has been updated as required by the Congressional Federal Record? It has been at least 4-5 years.
The federal and state laws along with the CPSA says that mtb and c1pa are equivalent and to be treated the same. Except for the two stated parks above (Chino Hills and Crystal Cove), why are c1pa's being discriminated against? Again the respective ordinance that each park claims is the reason are not validated by current studies, have not been updated in years, and no explanation or study has been provided to justify the ban. Since the other state parks have lifted the ban what makes those two parks unique that c1pa's are banned? If "speed and safety" or "wildlife impact" are the reasons for the ban, won't that apply to other state parks, where the ban has been lifted? What makes those two parks unique in regards to "wildlife impact" and "speed and safety"?
To summarize, those two parks do have the right to ban c1pa's by state law. However, the justification for doing so has not been provided other than "because the law gives us the right." I would hope there is some reason behind it, instead of "because we can". They are public parks, after all, and should allow use by the appropriate users that aren't destructive (i.e. ATV's, motorcycles, dune buggies, etc.). I agree that the park's responsibility is to regulate use and preserve the land. Thank you for doing so! However, in regards to the parks allowing c1pa's use, so far there have been no studies, plausible explanations or reasonable justifications given to explain their ban. Hopefully by addressing my questions you will be able to give adequate reasons for the ban on c1pa, if it even exists, while also educating yourself on the matter. A similar issue occurred in the 80's. Snowboards were initially banned at ski lifts. Now, no one would have any opposition to snowboards. It will eventually happen and IS happening to c1pa's also.
I have also been given the reason of complying with the CVC ( CVC Section 21207.5) and it has NOT been updated to address c1pa bikes for years (at least 6). And in regards to c1pa mountain bikes, the CVC does not apply to ebikes ridden off road. So unless you have other information, complying with the CVC is not applicable for justification of the ban.
A recent study was conducted by the Lake Tahoe area, where the forestry service lifted the ban on c1pa over a year. The results were actually quite enlightening! They found that opening up the trails to c1pa did several things:
More people over age 50 now were using the trails.
There was no change in wildlife impact.
The trails saw LESS erosion due to more people, as c1pa were now using ALL of the trails instead of just the easy ones, spreading out trail usage.
The most popular parking lots were less crowded as the trailheads with difficult access were now being used.
There was less trail conflicts as the population was more spread out over ALL the trails. A local study conducted by the University of Utah, contracted by Orange County showed that there is more of a "perceived" trail conflict instead of "actual" conflicts. In any case, trail conflicts were rare.
The rangers at the Lake Tahoe, forestry facility, in fact, were going to send their findings to Washington D.C. and encourage them to lift the ban on c1pa in all forestry areas. The section governed by the Dept of Interior, did just that (Ex. Order 3376). It has also been recommended to the Dept of Agriculture.
In regards to you statement above, "bounds of departmental e-bike policy as necessary to protect park resources and public safety per the individual circumstances associated with a park unit." You mentioned "public safety". What is your definition of public safety?
Speed? Studies have shown that downhill speed on c1pa's, is actually slower on ebikes, instead of a regular mtb, due to engine limits. So why the ban? On flat surfaces, the speed is the same. On climbs the c1pa's do have an advantage, but only slightly so. The average uphill speed on a mtb was approximately 9mph. On c1pa's it was approximately 12mph. A 3mph difference. Hardly a safety issue.
"Protecting park resources." What is that definition? Is it trail conflict? Studies have shown it is the same among hikers, equestrians and mtb/c1pa's. It is more perceived than actual, but in either case, it is rare.
Is "protecting park resources" defined as wildlife impact? If so, again there is no difference between hikers, equestrians and mtb/ebike users. Actually, equestrians have the most impact. Yet all of them are allowed to use the trails and c1pa's are banned.
Is "park resources" trail erosion? If so, studies have also shown that (other than motorized combustion engine vehicles), equestrians do the most damage, then hikers, then mountain bikes/c1pa's. So why are those entities allowed to use the trails, but c1pa's are banned?
Again, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I am only asking that the state parks justify their ban, in an unbiased review, by studies or reasonable explanations, to lift the ban in total to c1pa's. I have given you answers to specific concerns. I hope that you will also in kind, address my specific questions. I think you will find the information enlightening. Also to review the ordinances at those parks to update them on recent studies and reconsider their bans. We are almost there as it is, except for a few parks (i.e. Chino Hills, Crystal Cove and others).
SIncerely,
Dr. Kevin R Schmidt